{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigbgagnaopoc3ajd3u3jgxqe2wdqz3uhcdnidgkhyxxw5cz76jzki"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 48471
  },
  "path": "/scriptnotes-ai-script-coverage",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-05T00:05:02.000Z",
  "site": "https://nofilmschool.com",
  "tags": [
    "Craig mazin",
    "John august",
    "Ai",
    "Ai coverage",
    "Script coverage",
    "Scriptnotes",
    "www.youtube.com"
  ],
  "textContent": "\n\n\n\nWhen it comes to the world of screenwriting, I defer to John August and Craig Mazin when it comes to any and all things. I do that because they're more seasoned in the biz.\n\nAnd when we agree on things, I feel smart.\n\nThat's why I was pleased to hear about their recent chat about AI coverage on their podcast, ScriptNotes, where they delivered a blunt reality check: using AI for script notes isn't just ethically questionable...it’s often \"stupid.\"\n\nLet's dive in.\n\n- YouTubewww.youtube.com\n\n* * *\n\n## The Problem with \"Yes-Man\" Technology\n\nOne of the primary arguments against AI feedback is the inherent bias of the software. AI is designed to keep you engaged, not necessarily to tell you the hard truth. It wants you to keep asking it questions and wants you to keep using it.\n\nThat means that it will always sugarcoat things rather than challenge your creative choices or open a dialogue about what your intentions are with your written work.\n\nThe hard truth is that a script only gets better through critical analysis. Oftentimes, you need to burn it down and rebuild it to make it sing.\n\nAI is not built to do that.\n\n## AI < Humans\n\nOkay, so I think the podcast highlights a pretty direct reason humans are better at screenplay analysis than AI. It has to do with the way people read versus the way AI \"reads\" a script.\n\nWhen a friend gives you notes, they are consenting to the process. They give their time and insight willingly, expecting you to use that knowledge to grow. They are there to help. But they're also there because they want to be.\n\nAI functions by \"barfing back\" content it has scraped from the internet without the consent of the original creators. This lack of ethical foundation makes the process hollow for many professional writers.\n\n## What AI Can (and Can’t) Do\n\nAI is not great at creative feedback, but there are a few things it can do, like catching objective errors like typos, repetitive phrasing, or summarizing a document.\n\nIt is good at those things.\n\nBut writing is an art form meant for human beings to enjoy. And screenwriting is a blueprint meant for humans to use to make movies.\n\nAI doesn't have taste. It just can regurgitate stuff online.\n\nIf you're trying to break in or form a career, you need human support and humans believing in you, not computers.\n\nSo you need to write a script that is loved by people, not machines.\n\n## Summing It All Up\n\nIf you're looking for a spell-checker, AI is a fine tool. It's very good at that. And good at pulling out things it finds repetitive.\n\nBut if you want to make your script better, there is no substitute for human taste.\n\nAnd if you want to break into Hollywood, there's nothing better than a peer vouching for you and imploring their friends to read your work.\n\nLet me know what you think in the comments.",
  "title": "ScriptNotes Takes on 'Stupid' AI Script Coverage"
}